Advisory Report: Mammalian Positive List Assessment Framework Scientific Advisory Committee on the Positive List (WAP - Wetenschappelijke Adviescommissie Positieflijst) Maarn, 30 October 2018 Committee members: • Dr Ludo Hellebrekers, chair • Jan Staman, LLM, acting chair • Dr Sietse de Boer • Prof. Ruud Foppen • Dr Marja Kik • Prof. Frans van Knapen • Prof. Jaap Koolhaas • Dennis Lammertsma • Dr Yvonne van Zeeland Wageningen Livestock Research Support: • Geert van der Peet, secretariat and editing • Dr Hans Hopster, research methods 2 Table of Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1 Assessment framework and risk factors ........................................................................................................ 6 1.1 WAP Working method ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Step-by-step assessment .................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Screening chart ................................................................................................................................. 9 2 Notes and scientific basis ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Screening of extremely high risks ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Screening risks to animal welfare and animal health .............................................................................. 11 2.2.1. Food consumption ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2. Safety/concealment................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3. Climate ................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4. Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.5. Activity/periodicity .................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.6. Hierarchy/reproduction .............................................................................................................. 15 3 References ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix 1: LNV assignment to the Positive List Advisory Committee .................................................................... 21 Appendix 2: Definition of the risk classes ........................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 3: Risk assessment trials ................................................................................................................... 25 3 4 Foreword The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV: Ministry of Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit) wishes to create a list of animal species that are officially allowed to be kept domestically (the Positive List). To this end, in autumn 2017 the LNV invited a group of independent scientific experts to participate under their individual titles in a Scientific Advisory Committee on the Approval List (WAP: Wetenschappelijke Adviescommissie Positieflijst). LNV asked the WAP for recommendations on producing a simplified, scientifically valid assessment framework for the Domestic Animals Positive List. Criteria for the framework included practical feasibility (simple, time-efficient and cost-efficient), compliance with both Dutch and European laws, and scientific validity. The committee’s duties consisted of: • developing an assessment framework • drawing up concrete criteria for classification purposes in the framework • providing scientific evidence for these criteria • weighting the criteria relative to one another. The result was a recommended assessment framework that is both practicable and scientifically sound, and which can be used to identify and categorise species according to potential risk factors. Although the system was designed to be applied to mammals, it can also serve as the basis for assessing potential risks in birds, reptiles and amphibians. LNV asked the WAP to take animals’ intrinsic value (as described in the Animals Act) as the starting point when developing the assessment framework. In addition to animal health, the concept of welfare in the framework also allows for consideration of aspects such as natural behaviour and physical integrity. Assessment according to the framework produces a list of animal species classified according to potential risks to animal welfare and health, as well as potential dangers (zoonoses, injury) to humans and animals. A list of committee members and supporting experts is given on the front page. Dr Ludo Hellebrekers, WAP Chair 5 1 Assessment framework and risk factors The assessment framework is based on risks that can affect the health and welfare of humans and animals when certain species are kept in captivity. The WAP limited its scope to risk factors that have been scientifically proven potentially to cause substantial harm to health and welfare. Definition of a risk factor: A risk factor is a specific characteristic of a species that serves to aid its survival in its natural habitat, and which – if inadequately expressed due to restrictions in captivity or intensive contact with humans – will substantially affect the health and/or welfare of animals or humans. The assessment relies primarily on a screening process using binary risk factors (yes/no) that reveal across species which biological characteristics could impede the problem-free husbandry of specimens of a species under consideration. All risk factors are examined in connection with the following three categories of harm and/or discomfort: 1) zoonoses; 2) animal health/welfare and 3) physical injury to humans and animals. The justification for use of these features draws from scientific insights that are generic and non-species-specific, as outlined for each risk factor. This section then further details the assessment framework, listing (in order): • the method used by the WAP to draw up the framework • the over-arching assessment framework and risk factors • the assessment scheme with weighing factors • notes on the assessment framework and scientific underpinnings. 1.1 WAP working method The WAP worked with multiple iterative rounds to produce the final framework. 1. Work started by drawing up the first rough draft of the assessment framework and formulating risk categories, including risk factors for animal health/welfare and dangers to humans and/or animals. 2. Next, a provisional test of the assessment framework was carried out on a limited number of species of sufficient variety. 3. Form and content were edited in preparation for formulation of the final assessment framework. 4. Experts were asked for feedback on the draft. 5. Final testing was carried out on mammals, and risk factors further defined. 6. Form and content was edited in preparation for formulation of the final assessment framework. For each risk factor, the WAP: • produced a clear definition and explanatory notes with a view to ensuring a high level of reproducibility and compliance, regardless of who is using the framework (i.e. to ensure a clear definition of each relevant risk factor); and • provided scientific evidence for the adverse effects to the health and welfare of humans and/or animals. The assessment framework was drawn up to ensure that it can both be used on mammals and also serve as a basis for assessing potential risks in birds, reptiles and amphibians. The scientific validity of the system is currently based on mammalian research. We recommend having a number of bird and herpetofauna experts look at whether the screening process and/or the grounds for the associated risk factors require modification for these animal classes, and whether such modification is possible while retaining scientific validity. 1.2 Step-by-step assessment A step-by-step process is used to assess risks and classify the animal species accordingly. The committee operates under the basic assumption that legally prohibited species (see Article 1.4 1b2 of the Animal Husbandry Decree (Besluit houders van dieren)) are a priori excluded from the assessment procedure.1 1 Examples of such species include those prohibited due to risk of invasion. 6 These steps are as follows: STEP 1. To allow the use of the proper reference framework in qualitative species assessments, three experts are asked independently of one another to investigate the extent to which the species in question (or population group within the species) differs from the original species as the result of domestication or cross-breeding (species integrity). The experts then determine whether the species under examination can generally be considered to be domesticated, and whether domesticated populations exist within the species that justify using the ‘forma domestica’ as a reference instead of the original wild species. In the case of cross-breeds, the risk category of the highest-scoring